Talk:Murray Bartlett

RfC: Relevance of Murray Bartlett's sexuality

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The sexuality info added is disputed by interpretation of WP:BLP's rule on categorization. Does Metrosource make actor Bartlett's sexuality notable? Would the person's sexuality be notable in any way? Why or why not? How? --George Ho (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Not usable First of all, the "source" does not meet WP:RS. Second, at no point in the interview does Bartlett actually state that he is gay.  Third,  Wikipedia requites strong reliable self-identification fir such claims about sexuality.  Fourth, sexuality is not used in a BLP unless it is part of the person's specific notability. Four strikes. Collect (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

PS: Issues like this are an example of why I mostly stay out of BLP editing. It's not like working on an article about the Manx cat or albinism, where whatever facts that can be sourced can be included if they're relevant. BLPs have a lot of sensitivity rules. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No per - A) The source isn't a Reliable source and shouldn't ever be used on an encyclopedia, B) There needs to be alot more than just one "source", and last but not least C) Unless they're notable for being gay then it shouldn't even be in the article and if the  readds it again they'll probably be blocked. – Davey 2010 Talk 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Re the quality of the source used. The editor probably should have used one of the more notable sources littering the google search to support the claim. Rain  the 1  23:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The NYP (not a paragon for "celebrity gossip" by the way) makes their entire comment "who is gay and has a partner" which does not rise to meet any level of "self-identification" as required on Wikipedia. The article is about the show being cancelled, and not actually about Bartlett.  Collect (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello Collect. Thank you and point taken. I was just trying to help but probably should have spent extra time searching a source. Hopefully the editor reads that too as you explained it very well. Perhaps they could have used this source, assuming it needed mentioning in the article -  Rain  the 1  01:38, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Rain. Are you sure that the source makes the guy's sexuality notable per WP:BLPCAT? Certain people would oppose the inclusion as non-notable. George Ho (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * @Stanton and Collect: What about the interview with Australia's Channel Nine? Does it help? George Ho (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably not, since it would appear to have nothing to do with the subject's notability. Whether it's an attempt by the LGBT community to "claim" Bartlett, or an attempt by others to cast aspersions on him for his alleged sexual preference in a conservative political climate, it doesn't really seem appropriate here. Contrast this sharply with, say, Harvey Milk, who was openly gay and campaigning in part on a platform appealing to the gay vote, and shot in a hate-crime.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * No per all four of Collect's points. The self-identification thing is key, not least because the press often misidentifies bisexuals and pansexuals as "gay".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No - As above, the claim is not supported by reliable enough sources, nor is this even relevant to his notability. Meatsgains (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.